a new type of shilling - game developer locks content to specific Intel i7 CPUs [updated]

[Dabombinable]

4 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Just because you aren't willing to do the work to get my publicly available evidence doesn't make the evidence invalid.

 

You shouldn't, but I'm giving you something tangible you can trust, so stop making this about me and make it about the facts.

Ok, giving it a shot since Clang can compile under Windows. I'll start off with compiling it for 64bit Windows, then I'll run it on my 4790K @ stock.

[Dabombinable]

27 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Just because you aren't willing to do the work to get my publicly available evidence doesn't make the evidence invalid.

 

You shouldn't, but I'm giving you something tangible you can trust, so stop making this about me and make it about the facts.

I can thank you for one thing-I'd forgotten how useful notepad++ is.

 

Edit: Fuuuuck. Visual studio is huge. Glad that I swapped the boot SSD to my 240GB.

Edit 2: Oh, I don't need to install Fedora or any Linux distro to compile it BTW. Just Visual Studio & C++ build tools, already have the source file:

Is this correct?:patrickjp93.cpp

[Bouzoo]

17 minutes ago, MageTank said:

IIf he is a developer at Insomniac Games, doesn't that mean he is part of the gaming industry? If he is part of the gaming industry, and knows how to optimize for victim cache vs pure hierarchy, wouldn't that refute your own claim? Don't you even dare say Insomniac Games doesn't count as a AAA studio, because Ratchet and Clank was my jam, and was not only a platform headliner, it's also a movie now. Can't get more AAA than that.

*cough*Resistance series*cough*

[JefferyD90]

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 6:48 PM, M.Yurizaki said:

Remember that time Microsoft made a deal with Eidos and said "lol, don't give those Sony plebs your new Tomb Raider game for a year"?

[patrickjp93]

45 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I don't slink away, I just dig through the rubbish, find the opening, and exploit it. Take this for example:

If he is a developer at Insomniac Games, doesn't that mean he is part of the gaming industry? If he is part of the gaming industry, and knows how to optimize for victim cache vs pure hierarchy, wouldn't that refute your own claim? Don't you even dare say Insomniac Games doesn't count as a AAA studio, because Ratchet and Clank was my jam, and was not only a platform headliner, it's also a movie now. Can't get more AAA than that.

 

Also, you keep saying I use insults, but when have I insulted you? 

And if you watch his video, he rants about his own fellow developers, and the techniques he demonstrates are rudimentary.

 

He doesn't demonstrate anything about victim vs. pure hierarchy. He knows enough to get by, and he's the best they have.

 

Are you joking?

[Misanthrope]

6 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

No no no and no across the board. It's not locking down the platform.

"Locking features arbitrarily is not locking down the platform" - patrickjp93

 

Seriously we get that you think it's necessary to push it forward. We could even concede that doing something is necessary. This is just not it, because it fucking is locking away features arbitrarily for only some customers henceforth locking the platform.

 

Open platforms are different, they demand a bit more from the end user that should not expect to be cuddled with always perfect configurations so users should periodically be greeted with poor performance problems. It's part of the deal, one we deem acceptable since most of us are not arrogant and condescending to think "users are stupid, companies need to decide for them"

[patrickjp93]

31 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

I can thank you for one thing-I'd forgotten how useful notepad++ is.

 

Edit: Fuuuuck. Visual studio is huge. Glad that I swapped the boot SSD to my 240GB.

Edit 2: Oh, I don't need to install Fedora or any Linux distro to compile it BTW. Just Visual Studio & C++ build tools, already have the source file:

Is this correct?:patrickjp93.cpp

Visual Studio requires a number of extra compile-time flags. The intrinsic functions likely will not compile out of the box. Also, remember to turn on optimization with 0x. Do some quick searching to make sure you have a proper compiling setup. I did not test on Windows, partly because I'm learning Vulkan programming right now.

[patrickjp93]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

"Locking features arbitrarily is not locking down the platform" - patrickjp93

 

Seriously we get that you think it's necessary to push it forward. We could even concede that doing something is necessary. This is just it, because it fucking is locking away features arbitrarily for only some customers henceforth locking the platform.

 

Open platforms are different, they demand a bit more from the end user that should not expect to be cuddled with always perfect configurations so users should periodically be greeted with poor performance problems. It's part of the deal, one we deem acceptable since most of us are not arrogant and condescending to think "users are stupid, companies need to decide for them"

I didn't say that. The locking down isn't arbitrary. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

No, because it's not arbitrarily done.

 

YOU might deem it acceptable. Most people don't in my experience. Simply see the wccf, oc3d, guru3d, and other major forums.

 

Users are stupid in the general case.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

I didn't say that. The locking down isn't arbitrary. Don't put words in my mouth.

Disagreeing with you =/= putting words in your mouth.

 

Quote

Users are stupid in the general case.

 

Good, door's over there.

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

See now you're the one backing down from the scientific method. Anyone on here with Sandy Bridge and above can run the test. Or you could be a good sport and either disable your overclock or just not be a wuss and run the program since it's nowhere near as stressful on the system as AIDA64, Prime95, or Intel Burn Test. It's just vectorized addition. No fourier transforms, no hashing, no division, just addition.

 

It isn't just on paper. It's something you can run.

 

@Prysin @Dabombinable @AluminiumTech Come on, someone step up to the plate. Validate or invalidate my experiment! Someone have the balls to actually give me a fair shake.

 

 

while i can see (without running it) and understand (partially) how your code works, and will work as intended, i do not see why this validates or invalidates your argument.

 

For the sake of argument, in a game engine you WANT hashing for grouping or separating code without using up all your integers. Which can be a major issue. Without hashing of some form you risk creating an exponentially growing memory hog that will eventually self destruct due to the host OS terminating it in order to have the memory IT needs.

Yes, you may notice i've done a few more classes. Albeit from 2008, the MIT class on computer science was insightful. Unlike laying 85m of power cables in a cluttered garage.

 

Now, you CAN vectorize to save and or increase performance. But not always, and the engine would have to be built around the concept of vectorization. Remember how i referred in the past to simple openMP threading? How it would work "just fine"? It wont, unless the engine fundamentals allow for easy multi-threading, forced multi-threading may cause havoc on performance.

 

The main issue of coding in games is the amount of people involved vs discipline vs education vs money. Lots of shoddy code submitted and accepted due to budget restraints. Lots of people with little experience or outdated education. And a lack of discipline in commenting and structuring code. this causes a snowball effect that produces the final result.

 

Also, people here may not understand what i am on about, so just to recap.

Patrick decided to throw a ad-hominem at me about a year or so ago. Claiming my lack of intelligence was the reason he was right. Now look where we are, me reading up on computer science to the point of Patrick actually asking for an opinion. If i really want to disprove you, i'll learn your trade and become better at it then you are if need be in order to prove or disprove someone. In the end, i win either way as I learn something new. Knowledge is power.

 

i'm out.

[patrickjp93]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Disagreeing with you =/= putting words in your mouth.

 

 

Good, door's over there.

No, but you quoted me incorrectly, attributed something I did not claim to me.

 

I'll stay here thank you.

 

Users expect more cores will fix the problem even though they have no understanding of Amdahl's Law and its implications in scaling for multithreaded apps based on parallelizability percentages. They don't know how much Intel built for the computing industry to make optimization easy, tools which enterprise uses often but consumerville never does (OpenMP-2000, CilkPlus-2006, Thread Building Blocks-2010, intrinsic C/C++ functions for vectorization-2002 onward, the vector instructions themselves SSE1/2/3/4.1/4.2, AVX1/2/3.2, FMA3, and more). You see people constantly blaming Intel for the lack of performance gains. They're stupid! Intel's been the one pushing the boundaries, and no one has followed, at least not until now.

[Prysin]

9 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Visual Studio requires a number of extra compile-time flags. The intrinsic functions likely will not compile out of the box. Also, remember to turn on optimization with 0x. Do some quick searching to make sure you have a proper compiling setup. I did not test on Windows, partly because I'm learning Vulkan programming right now.

i got the Vulkan book i linked you a while back. Just started on it myself. It will be interesting to see how MS runtime differs from Linux runtime Vulkan i guess.

i urge you to get back on skype more often. I sense a lot of interesting discussions to be had

[patrickjp93]

3 minutes ago, Prysin said:

snip

I never said it was your intelligence that was the problem.

 

Also, I'd heavily disagree about the OpenMP thing, especially since it's being built into C++20.

[patrickjp93]

5 minutes ago, Prysin said:

i got the Vulkan book i linked you a while back. Just started on it myself. It will be interesting to see how MS runtime differs from Linux runtime Vulkan i guess.

i urge you to get back on skype more often. I sense a lot of interesting discussions to be had

Cool! If I wasn't super engrossed in learning Javascript for this dashboard website I have to build for my team, I'd love to keep pace with you and see where we get.

[Misanthrope]

27 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

No, but you quoted me incorrectly, attributed something I did not claim to me.

I made the claim, disagreeing with you. It was exceedingly fucking obvious just move on.

[patrickjp93]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

I made the claim, disagreeing with you. It was exceedingly fucking obvious just move on.

No, and not that obvious.

[LAwLz]

Heard about this on the WAN show. Heard that it was Intel being dumbasses and thought "I am willing to bet that Patrick will defend this to death", and wouldn't you know it, I was right.

 

This is bullshit and there is no good excuse for it. None at all. You are punishing consumers. This is Intel and the game developer saying "fuck you, you paying customer. We will punish you not because we have to, but because we can". The mere fact that Intel and the game developers went "oh shit we messed up" and then unlocked the content to everyone will invalidate any kind of argument about technical limitations. This was straight up a try to punish consumers, and I think it is completely deplorable that a company would even think of doing something like this. Fuck you Intel, and fuck you whoever the game developer is.

 

How anyone can defend this is beyond me.

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Heard about this on the WAN show. Heard that it was Intel being dumbasses and thought "I am willing to bet that Patrick will defend this to death", and wouldn't you know it, I was right.

 

This is bullshit and there is no good excuse for it. None at all. You are punishing consumers. This is Intel and the game developer saying "fuck you, you paying customer. We will punish you not because we have to, but because we can". The mere fact that Intel and the game developers went "oh shit we messed up" and then unlocked the content to everyone will invalidate any kind of argument about technical limitations. This was straight up a try to punish consumers, and I think it is completely deplorable that a company would even think of doing something like this. Fuck you Intel, and fuck you whoever the game developer is.

 

How anyone can defend this is beyond me.

Thank you. The only logical person in this thread besides @Dabombinable and @Prysin .

[patrickjp93]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Heard about this on the WAN show. Heard that it was Intel being dumbasses and thought "I am willing to bet that Patrick will defend this to death", and wouldn't you know it, I was right.

 

This is bullshit and there is no good excuse for it. None at all. You are punishing consumers. This is Intel and the game developer saying "fuck you, you paying customer. We will punish you not because we have to, but because we can". The mere fact that Intel and the game developers went "oh shit we messed up" and then unlocked the content to everyone will invalidate any kind of argument about technical limitations. This was straight up a try to punish consumers, and I think it is completely deplorable that a company would even think of doing something like this. Fuck you Intel, and fuck you whoever the game developer is.

 

How anyone can defend this is beyond me.

He says without even seeing the huge frame dips in the previously locked content t.

[Misanthrope]

N/M this thread needs to be closed, immediately.

[Prysin]

32 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Heard about this on the WAN show. Heard that it was Intel being dumbasses and thought "I am willing to bet that Patrick will defend this to death", and wouldn't you know it, I was right.

 

This is bullshit and there is no good excuse for it. None at all. You are punishing consumers. This is Intel and the game developer saying "fuck you, you paying customer. We will punish you not because we have to, but because we can". The mere fact that Intel and the game developers went "oh shit we messed up" and then unlocked the content to everyone will invalidate any kind of argument about technical limitations. This was straight up a try to punish consumers, and I think it is completely deplorable that a company would even think of doing something like this. Fuck you Intel, and fuck you whoever the game developer is.

 

How anyone can defend this is beyond me.

in some regards i think it was a good idea.

 

Although i think they should have set the bar at Intel i3s. Anything below should be banned from gaming. This needs to be done for all games IMO. It is time to raise the minimum scrubstation out of the fucking dirt so those of use with proper hardware can enjoy content for years.

[AlwaysFSX]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

in some regards i think it was a good idea.

 

Although i think they should have set the bar at Intel i3s. Anything below should be banned from gaming. This needs to be done for all games IMO. It is time to raise the minimum scrubstation out of the fucking dirt so those of use with proper hardware can enjoy content for years.

While I think there should be a minimum standard of hardware a game can run on without too many issues, I don't think the way to go about it is necessarily locking it off of other hardware.

[Prysin]

4 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

While I think there should be a minimum standard of hardware a game can run on without too many issues, I don't think the way to go about it is necessarily locking it off of other hardware.

it is, because if you just make the game too hard to run on craptops, people claim your game is unoptimized and poorly made. Which means 3 weeks after release they magically improve the performance in general by simply nerfing the fuck outta the AI, physics and particle effects.

[Bouzoo]

4 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Although i think they should have set the bar at Intel i3s.

Might be a bit complicating because AMD. Also many people use Gxxxx, and they get new revisions (almost) every year. 

[AlwaysFSX]

12 minutes ago, Prysin said:

it is, because if you just make the game too hard to run on craptops, people claim your game is unoptimized and poorly made. Which means 3 weeks after release they magically improve the performance in general by simply nerfing the fuck outta the AI, physics and particle effects.

I don't mean something like a Sempron but there's no reason an older i3 can't have enough power to drive modern titles without bottlenecking 90% of the graphics market.